dedub

Ah, my point however is 5 users aren't going to be streaming HD to the detriment of the other users. 5 users are going to be *trying* to stream HD (probably not very well if the site is so congested), to the detriment of all, including themselves (at least on that sector).

Oh you're right, if you search for amazon it does come up, but says zero %, and selected depts so hard to say if it works or not.

Well this I can agree with. 1 gig is waaaaaay too expensive. 1 gig should be included as part of the the base service along with the voice/text. If you need/want more than 1 gig, additional allotments should be reasonably priced accordingly.

note: not finished catching up, that is why quoting older posts. You can certainly do this, RIGHT NOW, both on sprint and other carriers. 1 gig plans are cheaper than unlimited or other larger allotment plans. Your dreams are already realized! Oh now I am disappointed in you... you know it is not possible for 4 or 5 devices to consume the maximum while simultaneously causing performance to suck for the other 100 users, unless those 4 or 5 devices were somehow prioritized ahead of the other 100, all 105 connections would share the suckage equally. and if anything, those 4 or 5 devices would be de-prioritized/throttled if they were considered heavy users and on a congested tower anyway.

nope. not sure if this page is viewable without an an account, but the stores are @ https://sprintpoints.retailbenefits.com/stores target, 1800flowers, kohls, coach, country outfitters, crocs, diaper dude, famous footwear, jcpenny, and a dozen other mall type store names.

I doubt this is anything store employees will be aware of.

hah, one phone number said was full, the other let me in, LOL. sprint LIES! (sarcasm alert!)

I can't wait for LTE only phones. I'd rather have the simplicity of no signal than the annoyances of 3g/lte handoffs/scanning/etc.

http://sprint.us/www/2015/tablet-push/?v=1&ECID=MA:SMS:US:20150513:ADD:AAL:AAT:10C

this. I expect it is mostly to not scare away the carriers, however. Even at $5/gb, that's 10 gig for $50 (not including the additional "the basics" charge @ $20), that's still more expensive than an iphone $50 unlimited plan or regular $60 android unlimited plan. $50 (20+30) for 3 gig is simply laughable.

All this effort and discussion about what if's and how to's is academic, none of us here are in control of any mobile phone company and have no sway or say in what plans will or won't be available now or any time in the foreseeable future. Sprint (and most likely tmo) unlimited is not going away any time in the immediate or near term, and if/when it goes away in the far future, any plans or discussion made now will be irrelevant by being based on the conditions of today instead of the unknown and uncertain future.

There are already at least 2 devices that can essentially do what you want. Nexus 6, and iphones. You may not be able to do it simultaneously, however you can simply pop in different sims into these phones when unlocked and therefore 'test drive' any service that you can get a sim for.

The only time any type of speed cap would reduce 'congestion' is where 1 class of user was speed capped, at lets say 3 megs, and another class of users was uncapped, or lets say has a 10 meg cap. So going back to the theoretical 100 pipe with 10 users; 5x users are capped @ 3, so thats = 15 out of 100 accounted for. 5x users are capped @ 5, so thats = 25 out of 100 accounted for. added together, that means 40 out of 100 of the available bandwidth is being used. so we have 60 bandwidth completely going to waste, while 10 users are being artificially slowed down, which increases the amount of time it takes to finish whatever it was they were doing. So instead of 10 users each getting 10 each for shorter periods of time, we have 10 users getting their 3 or 5 each, doubling or tripling the potential time it takes to finish and thus increasing their actual 'time on network' drastically. All so we can have an extra 60 bandwidth doing absolutely nothing. But lets quadruple that load; 20 people X 3 = 60 out of 100 20 people X 5 = 100 out of 100 oops, now we are at 160 out of 100 bandwidth ok ok, the cap only a max speed, not a minimum speed. so now we are back to; 100 / 40 = 2.5 each, below both of the speed caps. speed cap solved congestion ? nope oh, but wait there is more. instead of speed cap, we should use sliding scale speed caps, where 1 group gets proportionally less speed than the other group! or instead we can just do it by priority instead of speed, where 1 group has to sit and wait while group 2 gets to finish what they are doing before group 1 can even start!

Your whole speed cap idea is simply not suited for mobile networks, which by their very nature are entirely VARIABLE in available bandwidth, and the fact that as explained earlier, the network *already* speed caps the users to the (Number_of_Users divided by Amount_of_Bandwidth). There simply is no point to assigning some arbitrary 'speed cap' to mobile, which if done so would either be too high or too low to be of any practical use, and would not help with congestion one single bit. Fixed landline internet, that is typically very static in speed, at least in particular the specific connection between a residence and the ISP, and in which the very concept of speed caps and speed tiers is already in place and prevalent.

I would agree that it would *seem* like it was closed due to the tmo merger failure, however that in no way indicates a softening of commitment. Also, unless you can quote something from sprint or masa, all we have is conjecture and opinion. Even if Masa won't throw in more money, does not mean that sprint will fail or that it won't continue to improve.

Building a network is a lot like building in las vegas. When a casino or hotel gets too full, they build another. When a casino or hotel gets too empty or unprofitable, they tear it down and build whatever is currently too full. When 100 people are trying to share a 100-rated pipe, and 1 per person is not sufficient, then they build a bigger pipe. maybe a 200 pipe, or maybe a 1000 pipe.

Airlines and hotels do have unlimited tickets and stays. They may not have unlimited tickets PER PLANE, or unlimited rooms PER HOTEL, they most often have multiple PLANES and/or HOTELS at a different time and/or location. Assuming one wants to continuously buy hotel rooms and plane tickets, the hotel/airplane will most certainly accommodate them in most cases. Unless someone else has already bought the last room/seat *on a particular plane/hotel*, and ergo they become overbooked/oversubscribed. Now if you were trying to imply that 1 person could (or could not) buy all the seats or the rooms, well depending on the person (or company), that can and very well does happen too.

Think of network bandwidth like a collection of different size pipes that are flowing at different speeds to different places. On any section of pipe of the same size, (assuming no 'network management prioritization') all users using that section of pipe equally share the total capacity of that pipe. So, for example, if the flow of a segment of pipe is 100 (doesn't matter if its kbs, mbs, or whatever). 1 user can use up to 100 of that pipe. a 2nd user starts using the pipe, now they are both at 50. when a 3rd person starts using the pipe they all 3 at 33. 4th, all 4 are at 25. and so on except in longer duration streaming or downloading cases, network traffic is often in bursts. You load a web page, it downloads the pages content in a few seconds and stops using the network until a reload or click another page. In this manner dozens or hundreds of people can all share a pipe, get reasonable speed the majority of the time, until at some point the number of people simultaneously trying to use the pipe overwhelms it and the speed drops to a fraction of the total. So if 100 people are using that 100 pipe, you are obviously down to 1 per person, instead of the 20+ when only a few are using it. It is impossible for 1 person to 'hog all the bandwidth', because the user has no control over the priority of their stream, and they can't 'steal' your portion of the pipe, they simply get the total of the stream divided by the number of users, so the portion get smaller the more people that are sharing. Where 'hogging' comes more in to play is with lots of people using the pipe for longer periods of time. It's like when an airplane or hotel is over booked. No one can hog an airplane or hotel, however they can certainly overstay their welcome.

wonder if it will be able to put ddwrt and/or tomato on it or if it will be locked down somehow

nice, but add another $10 in taxes and shipping for me. wonder if they are in store at that price

this is the most interesting part of the release;

I don't think we will see much movement on price per gig until after VOLTE is ubiquitous and 3g has become extinct (as far as user experience). At that point, everything is data, and with facebook moving hard into messaging/calls/videochat, along with google's hangouts/voice/video, and apples imessage/facetime, I think eventually carriers will be forced to offer data only packages. Once the data only door has been opened, it's well and truly on the way for open competition regarding cost per gig. I think only google currently has the best over the top strategy, what with google voice basically giving a free phone number for life, once they fully integrate messaging/calling/video into a seamless experience (like how apples imessage is seamless), then google will win the over the top war. All other messaging systems seem to be based on email addresses and/or user names, but only phone numbers can provide the truly universal all-in-one contact. And only google (currently) is giving away phone numbers. Regarding your increasing cost per gig, I would not like that. Data costs to the user should either remain constant/fixed, or get cheaper, not more expensive. How would you like it if you had to pay more per gallon of water, or gasoline, the more you used ? Perhaps this cost increase happens automatically at the macro level (ie supply & demand), however not very often will an individual user switch to higher cost tiers as they use more of something.

The only way I would voluntarily move to a metered 'bucket' is with a combination of a) no overage charges (drop to slower/throttle use) + easy to 'top off' or additional data on the fly *when I determine* (not auto-add data) non-insane prices per gig (less than $5/gig) c) 'carry over data', unused data rolls forward on a continuous basis I wish google's forthcoming service would have encompassed some of these changes, but alas.

m8 has had that capability for awhile

I wish google would buy both tmo and sprint and be done with it.